It's one thing for George to state his opinions but he has no right to misrepresent what I'm saying. It's also strange to see system in which the government protects carriers against market forces defended in the name of capitalism.
I'm the one advocating private property. This is not theory. When I was at Microsoft I made sure the people would own the networks in their own homes rather than having providers turn it into a service so they could charge for each PC every month. We also need to remember that the carriers rights-of-way were taken from the communities and handed over the carriers. In the case of the phone company they were guaranteed a profit. Are you paid for their use of your property for the wires they string? I'm the one advocating a market-based solution in which people own their own property. If you have a condo you have some property that is yours alone and some property that is shared with your neighbors. The facilities we use to do networking should be owned by the community in the same way rather than taken from the community and handed over to companies that then charge us to use our own facilities each and every month. And, worse, charge us based on the value of the content - value that others create. I'm the one advocating a market-based approach in which we use our property and higher companies that we choose to maximize the value we get. Slogans aren't a substitute for reality. From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of George Ou Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 12:52 To: [email protected] Subject: [ NNSquad ] Re: Additional or differentiated services The most extreme form of Net Neutrality <http://www.digitalsociety.org/2010/08/the-three-extreme-forms-of-net-neutra lity/> advocates taking private property used for delivering non-Internet services and mandating that it be used for Internet capacity. I know Bob would love to see this and he has no respect for private property which he like others mistakenly believes is public property <http://www.digitalsociety.org/2010/08/techdirt-mistakens-broadband-for-publ ic-property/> , but it has no legal foundation. The Verizon-Google compromise sort of defends the right to enhanced or prioritized services so long as they're not called "Internet". That upsets the people that want to mandate equal service regardless of payment even though the Internet has always been equal service for equal payment. George Ou From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bob Frankston Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 9:09 AM To: 'Ellrod, Rick E.'; [email protected] Subject: [ NNSquad ] Re: Additional or differentiated services Yes. What more can I say - it protects the current business model against the danger of being undercut by their most feared competition - users with lots of bits. We see a form of this in today's story about NECN "NECN HD a tough sell for Comcast <http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2010/08/27/comcast_rival s_slow_to_pick_up_necn_hd/> " Why not just make NECN, which is advertising sponsored, available over the top. Charter spokesman Tom Cohan said: "As Charter deploys new technologies that allows us to use our bandwidth more effectively, we are adding HD channels. NECN is certainly one of a number of channels that is under consideration for future carriage in HD At least FiOS says they plan to add it but we're talking about a signal that is broadcast from my city not that far from my house. Yet I can't get over the abundant local capacity all around me with 3+ broadbands [sic]. I have to wait for FiOS to add it. You can argue whatever business model reasons you want but in the end I don't get to choose what I can watch. I have to accept what Verizon decides is in their interest. They don't want to risk a real marketplace where they don't have control. If this weren't bad enough I have to call FiOS support to find out why the signal on 690 (Comedy Central HD) is coming in so badly. I've got an IP connection with my VoD coming over IP over my Ethernet to my STB. Why is Verizon setting aside the bulk of their fiber the cable in my house that they poached from Comcast (who really owns the RG-6 Comcast installed?) for an analog signal when they could do it far better over IP? That's not the only problem with FiOS insistence on pretending it's 1950; even over IP they use brittle protocols that live by and thus die by QoS. So, yes yes yes. It's all about maintaining a business model even as the technology as left it behind. From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ellrod, Rick E. Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 09:33 To: [email protected] Subject: [ NNSquad ] Additional or differentiated services I wonder whether Verizon's principal purpose in introducing this qualification might be to protect the current model (used, for example, in FiOS) under which cable service and Internet access are two distinct services, with traditional multichannel video delivery not subject to the kinds of conditions net neutrality would require for Internet traffic. Some commenters have seemed to assume net neutrality would automatically mean that the traditional cable product would have to be subsumed under Internet access, so that "over-the-top" Internet video could compete on a head-to-head basis with cable operator-delivered multichannel video. The exception in the Verizon-Google proposal might be designed to prevent such arguments, not for some hypothetical future service, but for current cable service. Rick Ellrod -----Original Message----- From: Lauren Weinstein [ <mailto:[email protected]> mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 4:40 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [ NNSquad ] Google, Verizon, and Getting Real Google, Verizon, and Getting Real <http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000749.html> http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000749.html Greetings. Reactions to the "Verizon-Google Legislative Framework Proposal" ( <http://bit.ly/9EEEy7> http://bit.ly/9EEEy7 [Lauren's Blog] ) have been splattering around the globe ever since the two firms announced the plan earlier this month ( <http://bit.ly/cpO0bU> http://bit.ly/cpO0bU [Google Public Policy Blog] ). . . . Nor is it clear what sorts of services would qualify for the "additional or differentiated services" offerings (that is, not part of the public Internet per se) proposed by the framework plan. Verizon's CEO, during the conference call announcing the proposal, specifically mentioned "entertainment services" and 3D television -- but these seem among the more problematic examples -- especially given the rapid advances in video encoding technologies (including related to 3D). . . . --Lauren-- Lauren Weinstein ([email protected]) <http://www.vortex.com/lauren> http://www.vortex.com/lauren Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 Co-Founder, PFIR (People For Internet Responsibility): <http://www.pfir.org> http://www.pfir.org Co-Founder, NNSquad (Network Neutrality Squad): <http://www.nnsquad.org> http://www.nnsquad.org Founder, GCTIP (Global Coalition for Transparent Internet Performance): <http://www.gctip.org> http://www.gctip.org Founder, PRIVACY Forum: <http://www.vortex.com> http://www.vortex.com Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy Lauren's Blog: <http://lauren.vortex.com> http://lauren.vortex.com Twitter: <https://twitter.com/laurenweinstein> https://twitter.com/laurenweinstein Google Buzz: <http://bit.ly/lauren-buzz> http://bit.ly/lauren-buzz
